Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
aelinik.free.fr
Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
1–10 of 83 posts
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#2Unfortunately I only have 20 hours to learn C.
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#3This was one of the first books I read on C and programming I general! I remember I wasn't happy at all with it, so I gave up on it a bit after the middle. It must be pretty old.
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#4I only opened the first chapter, but I certainly won't recommend a book where things such as "There are two types of programming languages: compiled language and interpreted language." are written.
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#5Looks to be a useful resource, but I hate the title. Why? http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#6I only opened the first chapter, but I certainly won't recommend a book where things such as "There are two types of programming languages: compiled language and interpreted language." are written.
Would you prefer “one of the many ways to categorize languages is into buckets of either compiled or interpreted”?
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#7The "in 24 hours" part is of course just book title clickbait. I read Sams' C++ book and the 24 hours figure is making lots of assumptions such as general familiarity with programming, spending >10 times more time doing exercises and understanding the material and so on. And after all this, you will still just be a beginner since you will have no actual experience. It naturally also leaves out lots of material that isn't judged necessary to fit into the 24 hour time frame (though this may not be the case for the C book since the language is so much smaller).
As for this particular link, all image links in the text seem to be broken, and a pdf of the book can be found elsewhere.
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#8Unfortunately I only have 20 hours to learn C.
Why would anyone vote this down?
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#9I only opened the first chapter, but I certainly won't recommend a book where things such as "There are two types of programming languages: compiled language and interpreted language." are written.
Would you prefer “one of the many ways to categorize languages is into buckets of either compiled or interpreted”?
No, that is also wrong.
Even if you only consider compilers and interpreters (in real life there are many in-betweens: bytecode/VW, JIT, etc.), a language is not either interpreted or compiled. Maybe its reference/canonical implementation is an interpreter or a compiler, but that's all.
What would stop anyone from writing a C interpreter? Or a Python compiler?
Now consider OCaml, which canonical distribution comes with the `ocaml` interpreter, and the `ocamlc` and `ocamlopt` compilers: how do you classify the language?
Re: Teach Yourself C in 24 Hours (1997)
#10Unfortunately I only have 20 hours to learn C.
Just skip the introduction part